IN the last chapter the subject of the present one has been in some degree
anticipated. It has been there shown what is the real amount of the assertion, that
the riches of a society may be doubled or trebled without any thing being added
to their value. The subject, however, is of so much importance, that it will be
necessary to enter into a closer examination of it.

The distinction between riches and value is sufficiently obvious, riches signifying
the commodities themselves (with one or more accessory ideas annexed), and
value denoting the relation in exchange between any of these commodities. [163] Mr. Ricardo, nevertheless, has been singularly unfortunate in his attempt to
discriminate them. His elaborate chapter, which contains it, appears to me to be
a remarkable tissue of errors and uumeaning [sic] conclusions, arising from his
fundamental misconception of the nature of value. Throughout the whole of this
chapter, he speaks of value as the positive result of labour: whence it follows, that
the same quantity of labour must always produce the same value, however much
its productive powers may have increased. Riches, therefore, may be indefinitely
multiplied, while no more labour is em ployed; but the value of the riches, under
this condition, remains invariably the same.

Such is the sum and substance of his argument. The error of stating the value to
remain constant has been sufficiently considered. There is still, however, an
ambiguity or obscurity in the meaning of the term riches, which requires to be
cleared up. Mr. Ricardo has regarded it as synonymous, sometimes, with
commodities and at other times with abundance[164]of commodities. It is
evidently used in a collective sense; it is a term expressive of aggregation, if not
of plenty. The adjective rich is never applied but to denote the possession of
abundance, or the means of commanding it, and it may be doubted whether the
substantive riches is ever used without an implication Of the same idea. If it were
merely a general expression for commodities, without any accessory idea, it might
be discarded from, our speculations, and the latter word substituted in its stead.
But such an experiment would not answer. We could not with any propriety
change the title of Adam Smith's great work into An Inquiry into the Nature and
Causes of the Commodities of Nations. We should approximate more nearly to
the meaning of the original, were we to translate it, An Inquiry into the Nature
and Causes of the greater or smaller abundance of Commodities possessed by
Nations.

Whether the idea of abundance, however, is involved in the meaning of riches or
not, [165] the idea of aggregation or collection cannot be excluded. A single grain
of wheat is not wealth, although it may be said to be an article of wealth. The idea
of possession also seems essential to it. Riches are not simply commodities as
things existing, but as things possessed. The most useful articles in an uninhabited
country could not be termed wealth, because they would have no proprietor. The
country, it is true, might be denominated rich in such articles, but only inasmuch
as it would be the container or possessor of them. There would still be the same
idea of possession involved in our language.

Whatever difficulty may be found in furnishing a good and complete definition of
riches, there can be none in establishing the difference between the terms riches
and value, as used in the science, of Political Economy. Riches are the attribute
of men, value is the attribute of commodities. A man or a community is rich; a
pearl or a diamond is valuable. He pos-[166]sesses riches who is the owner of
commodities which themselves possess value*; and, further, he is rich
in proportion to the value of the objects possessed. Mr. Ricardo, indeed, denies
that value is the measure of riches; but a slight consideration will show, that it is
the only criterion by which we can determine whether one man or one community
is richer than another. If the wealth of two men consisted in one single
commodity, then, without entering into the question of exchange or value, we
might determine that one was richer than the other, from mere excess of quantity.
Even, however, in the simplest imaginable case of [167] this kind, there would
necessarily be a superiority of value, if such an idea came at all into question, as
well as of wealth. If the sole commodity in possession of the two individuals were
corn, of which one possessed 500 quarters and the other 1000, the latter would not
only be richer, but the proprietor of produce, the aggregate value of which was
greater.

In all but this very simplest case, it would be impossible to decide with accuracy
on the superiority of two individuals in point of riches, except by estimating their
value in some common medium. Suppose the individual who possessed the 500
quarters of corn, was worth also 500 yards of cloth, while the other, who had 1000
quarters of corn, possessed only 100 yards of cloth; in what imaginable method
could their riches be compared, and the superiority of one over the other be
ascertained, except by means of their value, computed in some common medium
of estimation, or reduced into one denomination ?

[168] With regard to heterogeneous commodities, there are in fact only two
conceivable criteria of riches: one, the utility of any possessions; the other, their
value. The first is in the highest degree unsteady and indeterminate, and altogether
inapplicable. Iron, as Mr. Ricardo remarks, may be more useful than gold, but the
possession of a pound of the former metal would not constitute a man as rich as
that of an equal weight of the latter. Value, therefore, is the only criterion of riches
which is left to us.

In determining, then, the question whether riches could be increased, without an
increase of value, we must recur to the principles laid down in the last chapter.
The answer in each particular case will depend on the medium of estimation.
There is one additional remark, however, which may be here introduced. In the
chapter referred to, a case was supposed, in which all commodities were produced
in double quantity by the same labour, with the exception of one solitary article,
and it was [169] admitted, that if the whole were estimated in this one commodity,
the aggregate value would be unaltered. In this hypothetical case, nevertheless, it
still remains to be determined how we are to estimate the value of the commodity
chosen as the medium. In estimating the whole produce in this medium, we
necessarily include the latter, and compute it as being worth itself. But value is a
relation between two objects, and had we in any case to express the value of the
medium, we must have recourse to one of the other commodities, when its value
would appear to be doubled. Hence, although according to the supposed estimate,
the aggregate value of the other commodities would be the same, the value of the
medium would be twice as great as before ; and thus it might be truly said, that let
us adopt what medium of estimation we please, no increase of riches can take
place without an increase of value.